whatever they feel is necessary? like taking over the government and lining americans up against walls to be shot, as long as it's necessary?

No, in the context of getting information from captured enemies. In line with the subject of this thread, not a huge leap.

I'm being semi-inciting.

I think to myself..what if one of my family members had been killed in the WTC, or beheaded in Iraq? How would I feel about a known "terrorist" being "tortured"..well..I might not be as sensitive as someone else.

So..we're allowed to shoot huge holes through people..but not allowed to put a wet cloth over their face?

I feel that I could just as easily argue for either side of the issue.

and what if member your family captured by enemy? what want happen--or not happen--then?

What would happen then? I would think they were seriously f'd, and wouldnt trust any other nation not to torture them.

Of course there's nothing bad about prosecuting torturers. Anything else would be hypocritical.

I disagree. I think the military should be able to do whatever they feel is necessary. It's too bad that it became so public.

ever take oath where swear uphold constitution?

How do you feel about the 3/5's compromise?

Last I checked, the 3/5 compromise was rendered moot by the Thirteenth Amendment. It's not about selectively defending the Constitution, it's about prosecuting what's illegal. According to the treaty we signed, we're not even allowed to send someone back to their own country if we can reasonably believe they could be tortured, and we sure as @#!* aren't allowed to do it.

Of course there's nothing bad about prosecuting torturers. Anything else would be hypocritical.

I disagree. I think the military should be able to do whatever they feel is necessary. It's too bad that it became so public.

ever take oath where swear uphold constitution?

How do you feel about the 3/5's compromise?

Last I checked, the 3/5 compromise was rendered moot by the Thirteenth Amendment. It's not about selectively defending the Constitution, it's about prosecuting what's illegal. According to the treaty we signed, we're not even allowed to send someone back to their own country if we can reasonably believe they could be tortured, and we sure as @#!* aren't allowed to do it.

whatever they feel is necessary? like taking over the government and lining americans up against walls to be shot, as long as it's necessary?

No, in the context of getting information from captured enemies. In line with the subject of this thread, not a huge leap.

I'm being semi-inciting.

I think to myself..what if one of my family members had been killed in the WTC, or beheaded in Iraq? How would I feel about a known "terrorist" being "tortured"..well..I might not be as sensitive as someone else.

So..we're allowed to shoot huge holes through people..but not allowed to put a wet cloth over their face?

I feel that I could just as easily argue for either side of the issue.

and what if member your family captured by enemy? what want happen--or not happen--then?

What would happen then? I would think they were seriously f'd, and wouldnt trust any other nation not to torture them.

whatever they feel is necessary? like taking over the government and lining americans up against walls to be shot, as long as it's necessary?

No, in the context of getting information from captured enemies. In line with the subject of this thread, not a huge leap.

I'm being semi-inciting.

I think to myself..what if one of my family members had been killed in the WTC, or beheaded in Iraq? How would I feel about a known "terrorist" being "tortured"..well..I might not be as sensitive as someone else.

So..we're allowed to shoot huge holes through people..but not allowed to put a wet cloth over their face?

I feel that I could just as easily argue for either side of the issue.

and what if member your family captured by enemy? what want happen--or not happen--then?

What would happen then? I would think they were seriously f'd, and wouldnt trust any other nation not to torture them.

Yes, I KNOW it was rendered moot..that wasnt my point. My point was that the Constitution isnt some holy grail, and it's subject to amendments.

We aren't even talking about the Constitution. We're talking about international law--treaties that we signed, and even had a major part in authoring in some cases. And again, last I checked, those haven't been "amended" to make the US an exception.

actually, constitution quite relevant as limit on power of president do whatever want. torture, even of enemy combatants, illegal by u.s. statute.

whatever they feel is necessary? like taking over the government and lining americans up against walls to be shot, as long as it's necessary?

No, in the context of getting information from captured enemies. In line with the subject of this thread, not a huge leap.

I'm being semi-inciting.

I think to myself..what if one of my family members had been killed in the WTC, or beheaded in Iraq? How would I feel about a known "terrorist" being "tortured"..well..I might not be as sensitive as someone else.

So..we're allowed to shoot huge holes through people..but not allowed to put a wet cloth over their face?

I feel that I could just as easily argue for either side of the issue.

and what if member your family captured by enemy? what want happen--or not happen--then?

What would happen then? I would think they were seriously f'd, and wouldnt trust any other nation not to torture them.

I doubt us not engaging in torture would prevent torture by anyone with whom we'll realistically be fighting in the next few decades. That having been said, maybe a "do unto others..." argument applies?